The New York Times is the newspaper that serves as a de facto authority in the news
business. Regardless of its openly liberal, anti-war, anti-Bush editorial slant, news items that
appear in the Times are repeated by other newspapers and broadcasters without the slightest hesitation or
doubt. This is largely because of the NYT's many decades of experience and -- until recently -- its
reputation for accuracy and objectivity. Unfortunately, the NY Times has become a talking points
memo for the radical leftist war protestors in the Democratic Party. That's perfectly okay, and the
First Amendment guarantees the protection of such a newspaper, except when the newspaper publishes
information that is beneficial to our enemies while we are at war. At that point, if the
New York Times were to be forcibly shut down, the country would be better off. Fortunately
for the Times, the U.S. has neglected to make an official declaration of war.
The half-baked attack on Senator McCain:
The New York Times — Political Assassins.
The New York Times on Wednesday evening [2/20/2008] went to the web with, "For McCain, Self-Confidence
on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk," an innuendo-filled and fact-deprived 3,000 word ramble on the 1999
professional interactions between now virtually certain Republican Presidential nominee John McCain
and lobbyist Vicki Iseman. They then extrapolated the unproven impropriety of this alleged
"relationship" into a broader questioning of McCain's ethics.
John McCain: Finally A Republican
Again — to the Media! Now that McCain is the nominee apparent, the New York Times has
done some digging and what do you know, McCain was one of the infamous "Keating Five" back in the
1980s. In case you've forgotten, as was intended by the media, the Keating Five were a group
of "allegedly" corrupt Senators that did special favors for Arizona wheeler-dealer Charles Keating,
one of the worst offenders in the Savings and Loan crisis that cost the government billions when it
imploded.
All news fit
to smear. Here we go again. Failing miserably to nail down a story never prevented the
Newspaper of Record and Rumor from shooting itself in the foot, or more sensitive regions, when vanquishing
enemies. Why start now? The New York Times is not an organ to pass up a chance to mug a
Republican, disrespect a soldier, or destroy the lives of men born with white skin. Not when it
suits its agenda.
Yellow journalism at the
Times. One of the first rules of decent, principles-abiding journalism is that you don't print
rumors. That is nevertheless what The New York Times just did in a smear job on John McCain, who is
very nearly certain to be the Republican nominee for president.
Drive-by
Journalism: This was no failure to live up to high standards. It was a drive-by shooting
masquerading as a newspaper story. Indeed, the 3,000-word piece — written by a team of four
reporters after months of "work" — was long on innuendo, thick with anonymous sources and shockingly
short on substantive facts. Time magazine's managing editor, Rick Stengel, said yesterday [2/21/2008]
he would never have run such a piece.
Times Executes a Well-Timed Ambush.
If John McCain weren't such a trusting soul he would have wondered why The New York Times endorsed
him — a member of the hated Republican Party — as their (slightly) preferred
candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, especially when he knew they were preparing
a slanderous, largely anonymously sourced, story bound to damage his candidacy and his reputation.
The very wording of their endorsement should have been sufficient warning that eventually they'd be out
to get him.
Inconvenient
Fact: Times Sex Scandal Writer's Left-wing Connection. As media digest the recent John
McCain sex scandal allegations by the New York Times, one side of the story seems destined to get ignored:
one of the four co-authors took money from a liberal activist group to fund a hit piece about Sen. Mitch
McConnell (R-Kent.) in 2006.
All the innuendos fit to print. I
am surprised to learn that Tonya Harding has taken up journalism. What else explains last week's
knee-capping of Sen. John McCain by The New York Times? Obviously, the bad girl of figure skating has
been given a corner office at Times headquarters.
The
New York Times' Assault on Working Women. For once, liberals and conservatives can agree on
something: The New York Times acted shamefully in publishing a story in part suggesting that John
McCain might have had an extramarital affair. The piece, laced with little more than rumor and
innuendo, was obviously designed to strangle the McCain campaign in its cradle.
The
Gray Lady's Double Standard: [Scroll down] What I'm confused about is why the New York Times
splashed this story on page one as if it were of blockbuster importance. First of all, the Times is not
known for its Comstockish disapproval of marital infidelity. Second, the Times would never have credited
allegations of favoritism like this if the lobbyist in question were, say, the son of an old Navy buddy.
Liberalism,
the Times, and the Sliming of John McCain. As it ditched Hillary Clinton for the nebulous,
platitudinous — and scary — Barack Obama, The Times chose to move McCain from his status
as the left's favorite conservative to its most detested (and feared) Republican. None
of what it said about his behavior rang true, and apparently none of it was.
The MoveOn discount:
NY
Times criticized for ad attacking top general. An ad criticizing the top U.S. general in
Iraq raised charges on Thursday [9/13/2007] that The New York Times slashed its advertising rates for
political reasons -- an accusation denied by the paper. ... Moveon.org confirmed it paid $65,000 for
the full page ad headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray Us." The New York Post ran a
story on Thursday asking why the basic rate of $181,692 for such an ad was discounted.
Subsidizing Sedition:
The New York Times gives moveon.org a discount on a full-page ad smearing Gen. David Petraeus. Does anyone
think for a minute that the Times would grant a similar discount for a group backing Petraeus?
Did The New York Times Break the Law?
Republican Congressman Tom Davis of Virginia is asking Democrat Henry Waxman, the chairman of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, to convene a hearing over the MoveOn.org ad in The New York Times calling General
David Petraeus, "General Betray Us." Davis says The Times may have unlawfully subsidized the political
message of MoveOn by giving it a discounted rate.
'General
Betray Us' Ad Violated Election Law, Group Says. The formal complaint charges that the
organizations responsible for the full-page ad that ran in the Sept. 10 New York Times violated the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 as amended, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
N.Y.
Times admits Petraeus ad sold to Moveon.org at 1/2 off. The old gray lady has some explaining to
do. Officials at the New York Times have admitted a liberal activist group was permitted to pay half the
rate it should have for a provocative ad condemning U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus.
MoveOn.org's
demeaning attack: The overzealous liberal group MoveOn.org proved once again that one organization
can make a difference — a bad one. MoveOn.org's ill-considered, outrageous New York Times newspaper ad
calling Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, "General Betray Us" not only slimed a well-respected
general, it distorted a very real and very serious debate about the course of the war.
The New York Times
and Sarbox: Having dug itself into a hole with inept handling of the MoveOn.org ad and its
aftermath, the New York Times Company may soon find itself unable to put down its shovel. Few ironies
approach the richness of the mess the firm may face with the regulatory requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Sauce for the
Times: The Times, a media corporation that is a fountain of detailed editorial instructions
about how the rest of the world should conduct its business, seems confused about how it conducts its own.
The Times now says the appropriate rate for MoveOn.org's full-page ad should have been $142,000, a far cry from
$65,000, which is what the group paid. So the discount of $77,000 constitutes a large soft-money
contribution to a federally regulated political committee. The Times' horror of such contributions
was expressed in its enthusiasm for McCain-Feingold.
"The provision of any goods or services without charge or at a charge that is
less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services is a contribution."
– FEC
regulations
The McCain-Feingold
Newspaper Price Control Act. Most newspaper editorial pages … support
McCain-Feingold and other restrictions on campaign speech, which do not apply at least to
editorial content of newspapers. One wonders if any newspapers will change their
editorial line now that their publishers are facing the threat of government intervention
in their own business.
Did
someone mention McCain-Feingold?
The
New York Times' Left-Wing Discount: Imagine if the New York Times gave half-price ad space to
the National Right to Life Committee or the National Rifle Association. It would never happen, of
course, but if it did, you can envision the left-wing clamor.
Maybe the Times Can't Ad. The
New York Times finally came clean this week, admitting that it gave MoveOn.org a steep discount for the group's
disgusting ad denouncing Gen. David Petraeus — and the Federal Elections Commission is taking notice.
As it turns out, a 1974 campaign-finance law makes it illegal for corporations to give money to political action
committees like MoveOn. And the Times' $77,000 rate cut almost certainly amounts to a hefty in-kind
donation — also illegal by the FEC's lights.
Anti-American / anti-war bias and inaccuracy:
The
Killer-Vet Lie: Memo to New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt: Your urgent attention is
needed on the slanderous 7,000-word front-page article published last Sunday about homicides allegedly committed
by US veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. We say "allegedly," because the article lumped
those merely accused of a homicide with those who've already been convicted. But that was the least of
the piece's problems. As our colleague Ralph Peters so adroitly demonstrated on these pages Tuesday, the
article embraced the hoariest of overwrought clichés — the US combat vet as psychotic killer.
The
Return of the Wacko Vet Media Narrative. Who is responsible for such agenda-driven
reporting at the Times and other media outlets? Mostly senior reporters and editors who
are in their 50s and 60s, folks who came of age during the 1960s.
The
War Card: The New York Times now tells us that a new study entitled "The War Card" has
determined authoritatively that during the months leading up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, top
officials in the Bush administration — including the president himself — made "hundreds of
claims, mostly discredited since then, linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda or warning that he
possessed forbidden weapons." The Times did not report that the study had been conducted
by an organization that received more than $1.62 million from George Soros in the last few
years alone.
News
That's Fit to Bury. Sure sounds like a lead story to us. But then, that
would be good news about the war — and the Times has too much invested in its
nonstop campaign to depict the situation in Iraq as an unmitigated disaster. Any
suggestion that the tide of war is turning and the terrorists actually are being
defeated — something even Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), one of Capitol Hill's
harshest critics of President Bush, now admits — simply won't do.
The Times Vs. Citizen McCain.
Is the New York Times really suggesting that the child of an illegal alien who sneaked past the Border Patrol is
qualified to be president, but an American war hero born to American parents overseas is not?
What part
of secrecy don't they understand? This is not the first time The New York Times
has reported on "top secret" government documents, programs, or war plans.
Getting it wrong, letting it slide.
Why is it that the mightier the news organization, the likelier it will stand by ethical blunders
that would shame a first-year reporter? Apparently, along with industrial mastery comes the
right to deny, evade, whine and nitpick instead of owning up to what you did wrong and making
sure you don't do it again.
Warning: This article contains vulgar expletives.
Rosenthal Blasts Critics
Over Dowd Column. Some media observers are in a tizzy over a recent Maureen Dowd column published
with a "Derry, N.H." dateline even though she filed it from Jerusalem. Also that some of the quotes used
in the column were collected by her assistant, without a reporting credit. Greg Sargent originally called
attention to it; the Columbia Journalism Review described it as "easy manipulation," and Spencer Ackerman said
that using the Derry dateline was a lie.
Major shareholder
bailing out of the New York Times. The decline of the New York Times as a reputable newspaper
has been matched by the decline of its business management. The running (or running down of the
newspaper) by "Pinch" Sulzberger, descendant of the family which had purchased and remade the paper
generations ago, has progressively destroyed the value of the Times (the apple does fall far from the
tree -- especially after several generations). The paper has suffered disproportionably more than
its peers on the stock market.
The
Times to Cut 100 News Jobs. After years of resisting the newsroom cuts that have hit most
of the industry, The New York Times will bow to growing financial strain and eliminate about 100 newsroom
jobs this year, the executive editor said Thursday [2/14/2008]. The cuts will be achieved "by not
filling jobs that go vacant, by offering buyouts, and if necessary by layoffs," the executive editor,
Bill Keller, said.
How The New York Times Fell
Apart: Over the last few years, we've seen a number of newspapers find themselves in deep
financial distress as they've failed to deal effectively with the challenge posed by Cable News and the
Internet, and particularly (on the editorial side) the blogosphere and (on the business side) Craigslist,
Google, and eBay.
Unfit To Print?
Every major daily paper in New York took note of President Bush's decision to bestow the first Medal of Honor of
Operation Enduring Freedom on Navy SEAL Lt. Michael Murphy — a Long Islander who gave his life for his
country and his fellow SEALs. Every paper but one, that is. And it shouldn't be particularly hard to
guess which one.
Liberals Against Diversity. The
New York Times op-ed page is trying to go from bad to diverse. The page has hired William Kristol,
editor of The Weekly Standard, as a weekly columnist, starting next Monday.
Secrets,
leaks and political correctness: Last week, I wrote about the New York Times'
crusade to uncover and publish top-secret information and made the case that secrecy is in
fact oftentimes a good thing, not something to be rooted out and destroyed. That column
generated quite a few comments from people who were worried that I was advocating torture. I
didn't actually, but I do advocate whatever is necessary, including a little secrecy, to keep
us safe and to help us prevail in our war against Islamic terrorists.
Top Ten Lowlights of The New York
Times in 2006. From reporters throwing national security secrets onto the front page to publishers
going on liberal rants at graduation ceremonies, we've whittled down the worst from another liberally slanted
year in Timesland.
Financial Woes for the
New York Times. New York Times Company's reported financial results, outlook, and stock price
keep getting hammered by poor business performance. Having announced it will pay $125 million in
dividends, the company must increase its profits if it is to avoid further drawing down of shareholder equity,
amounting to gradual liquidation of the company.
The New York Times and Iran:
The New York Times has been criticized for helping terrorists in the past by disclosing investigatory methods
and rendition policies and practices, supporting them in its editorial pages and allowing terror suspects to
spin their stories in the news section, disclosing methods our nation has used to prevent funds from reaching
terrorists, condemned the existence of prisons holding terrorists, criticizing the laws brought to bear to
prevent terrorism, and whitewashing or apologizing for terror when it occurs.
New York Times
bond rating cut again. How much longer will Pinch Sulzberger's family allow him to drive the
family fortune into the ground? Under his leadership, the company has not only turned to the hard left
editorially, it has committed a series of business blunders imperiling their prosperity.
The New York Times
Reports and Distorts a Presidential Address. On July 24, around noon, President Bush delivered
an important speech at Charleston Air Force Base in South Carolina. He discussed in considerable detail
the links between Al Qaeda in Iraq and the central leadership of Al Qaeda, reflecting the conclusions
of the U.S. intelligence community. About four hours later, the New York Times posted a news story by
Times reporter Brian Knowlton about the speech.
NY Times calls
Iraq a 'lost cause'. The New York Times on Sunday [7/8/2007] called for US troops to leave Iraq now, writing
that President George W. Bush's plan to stabilize the country through military means is a lost cause.
MSNBC Confirms Liberal Media Bias.
The New York Times forbids donations, but that didn't stop Randy Cohen, who writes a syndicated column
for the Times called "The Ethicist," when he gave $585 to the far-left activist group MoveOn.org in 2004 to
organize get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat President Bush. Cohen said he understands the Times' policy and
won't do it again, but that he had "thought of MoveOn.org as no more out of bounds than the Boy Scouts."
The
Worst of 'Times'. If you read The New York Times, you must think you only imagined the welcome
announcement yesterday that JPMorgan Chase will build a grand new office tower next door to Ground Zero, just
as Goldman Sachs is doing. Didn't the Times repeatedly proclaim downtown's days as a financial center
were over? It sure did. And those who call the shots at the Times should be hauled before a
journalism tribunal for printing all the destructive propaganda that could fit in its pages.
'Talking'
terror. What if the months of planning and conversation that went into the 9/11 plot had been
leaked in advance to The New York Times? Would the Times have reported it? Or dismissed it as "just
talk"? Fair to ask — given how the Times reports on foiled domestic terror cases.
Coincidence or
pattern? We are to believe, I suppose, that it is mere coincidence that when leaks are harmful to
the Administration there is no inter agency cooperation and no DoJ motivation to pursue the matters and when it
is harmful to the Administration to pursue non-leaks and to sit on information helpful to the Administration,
everyone in the bureaucracy goes out full bore. At what point does repeated coincidence become a pattern?
My New
York Times Problem: Despite all the ongoing critiques, the Times remains a major cultural
gate-keeper. If a film, opera, ballet, concert, or book is reviewed in its pages — the work
exists. Otherwise, the work and its creator are rendered almost invisible.
The New York
Times' own Rathergate. Byron Calame, public editor of the New York Times, has laid out a
carefully worded exposé of the utter breakdown of editorial standards at the New York Times.
The fact that paper prominently published a falsehood is only the beginning of the problem. When the
falsehood was exposed, two senior editors of the paper issued a defense of the article without bothering to
check the readily available court documents which critics had cited.
Navy disputes war
story told by former sailor. The March 19 Sunday New York Times Magazine cover story
was a gripping account of the emotional problems some female veterans suffer as results of their war experiences,
sexual assaults or both. One of the women featured in the story was a former builder constructionman
Amorita Randall, 27, who … told the Times that she served in Iraq in 2004, which the Times reported as fact
but which it now appears was not the case.
How a New York Times reporter's passion
for Castro led him astray: Aha! Finally we've discovered the missing ingredient
in American journalism, the vitamin deficiency that's been shrinking newspaper circulation and TV
newscast audiences all these years. What Americans clamor for is not information but passion.
The heroes of the coverage of Katrina were not the reporters who got the most accurate stories but
the ones who shouted the loudest or cried the hardest.
'NY
Times' Only Major Paper to Show Dead Saddam on Front Page. It's a rare day when the august New
York Times tops the New York Post — and every other major paper in the U.S. — in grisly
or sensationalistic front page coverage, but it did so on Sunday. An E&P survey of front pages from
around the country reveals that the Times was the only major paper to include a picture of executed Iraqi
dictator, Saddam Hussein, on its front page, after his hanging. It was even above the fold.
New
York Times Turns to Supreme Court. The New York Times asked the Supreme Court on Friday
[11/24/2006] to block the government from reviewing the phone records of two reporters in a leak investigation
about a terrorism-funding probe. The case involved stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith
Miller and Philip Shenon that revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities,
the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation.
Update:
Court turns down New York Times in leak
investigation. The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday [11/27/2006], refusing
to block the government from reviewing the phone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation of a
terrorism-funding probe.
Dirty Trick from the New York Times. In
a last-minute dirty trick before the election, The New York Times took a story and twisted it in such a way as to
damage the Bush Administration. This will go down as a case study of media bias intended to sway votes.
Blood Will be On His Hands. A trend is
developing whereby reporters for the New York Times let their hair down, drop any pretense of objectivity, and
ream the Bush Administration. First it was Linda Greenhouse, the Times Supreme Court reporter. Now
it's James Risen, the Times reporter who revealed the administration's highly classified NSA
terrorist-surveillance program.
NY Times: Saddam Close to Building Atomic
Bomb. In an effort to hurt Republicans on November 7, the New York Times published a story
accusing the Bush Administration of posting Iraqi documents that suggest Saddam Hussein's Iraq was close to
building an atomic bomb. … Former intelligence officer and NYPD detective Sydney Francis says that the
New York Times is attempting to have it both ways. "They say that Saddam wasn't developing nuclear
weapons, but then they say Saddam possessed documents that could help someone create a nuclear bomb,"
says Francis.
Times Risks American Blood in Terror War.
The September 18 copy of New York magazine features the blaring headline, "Times Under Siege," and the reported
claim by President Bush that the paper's editor would have "blood on his hands" if he published a story about
electronic surveillance of terrorist telephone calls. If this is true, the Bush Administration has an
obligation to prosecute the Times for revealing classified communications intelligence information.
More FISA
Fear-Mongering: The New York Times strikes again. In Times parlance, such
monitoring of international enemy contacts, routinely carried out by every wartime president in history,
somehow becomes "domestic spying" when George W. Bush employs it against an enemy that has managed to
attack the United States — and, according to the intelligence community's latest assessment, is
working feverishly to do it again.
The horses are out. Let's close the gate.
Banking
Data: A Mea Culpa. Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the
published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there's a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own
flawed assessments. My July 2 column strongly supported The Times's decision to publish its June 23
article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have
decided I was off base.
Let's dare call it
treason. They are not Benedict Arnolds — they are in a class all
by themselves — political and journalistic hacks willing to do anything to win
an election and oust an administration they loathe even if by so doing they endanger
the safety of their fellow Americans. Time after time, for months on end, we have
watched the spectacle of government officials in the intelligence agencies violate their
oaths by leaking the most sensitive secrets to dedicated anti-American newspapers such
as the treasonous New York Times.
The New York Times Still is
not Sure Bush is "Legitimate": Most media and congressional leftists who attacked President Bush
during our national emergency have backpedaled like crazy after an outpouring of rage from the public, but the
dunce king of all media arrogance, the New York Times, is still at it.
Whack 'em
Down: Facts are something the New York Times and Time magazine and all
the rest of the corrupt elitist media find most inconvenient and simple to ignore or
distort. What to do with the elitist media? Shun them. Don't read the
New York Times. Don't buy Time magazine.
Minimum Rage: When
The New York Times calls your argument "straightforward" and a CNN host calls your opponents' arguments "a lot
of bull," you can probably count the media on your side. That's exactly what Democrats are seeing in the
media's approach to minimum wage increases — an issue designed to turn out liberal voters in at least six
states this fall.
N.Y.
Times: Better dead than read. We're in a battle for our survival and we don't even know
who the enemy is. As liberals are constantly reminding us, Islam is a "Religion of Peace." One
very promising method of distinguishing the "Religion of Peace" Muslims from the "Slit Their Throats" Muslims is
by following the al-Qaida money trail. But now we've lost that ability — thanks to The New York Times.
Downsizing the New York
Times. Normally, this would be a juicy target for series of articles on the front and business
pages of the New York Times. You know the drill: a parade of blue collar people victimized by the Bush
administration, and now facing a bleak future. Meanwhile the insiders make out fine. There's even
a fat cat CEO whose compensation package has done a whole lot better than its profits or stock. … But
today, the company in question is the New York Times Company. So don't expect the same rules to apply.
The
newspaper of wreckage. On June 22, the paper trumpeted its expose of "a secret Bush
administration program" to track terror finances. … But by July 2, smarting from the
public backlash against its blabbermouth coverage, the Times crew was backpedaling faster
than circus monkeys on barrels hurtling over Niagara Falls. Suddenly, the "secret" was
no secret at all.
Because
the New York Times says so. According to America's leading journalists, the United States
government cannot run clandestine operations. Indeed, it cannot keep secrets or do anything
in secret — if the press thinks "the people" should know about it. I put "the people" in
quotation marks because for the press, it seems, "the people" are an abstraction. It needn't
matter that the public understands some things should be kept secret; the press will tell them for
their own good.
Who
is the real threat to America? Sometimes you have to just wonder if these liberal geniuses at the
New York Times and elsewhere have the slightest scintilla of common sense, let alone goodwill.
Gun laws breed
corruption. Ordinary citizens who have had death threats or those who operate small businesses in
high crime neighborhoods have little hope of obtaining a [concealed weapon] permit. And using an unlicensed
gun to defend oneself in New York City is a guarantee of serious prison time, no matter how legitimate the
defensive need. According to information obtained through leaks and the Freedom of Information Act, many
NYC permitees are celebrities and political cronies. The last time information was released, celebrity
permit holders included … Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the rabidly anti-gun New York Times.
Troops targeted by ACLU and anti-war
media. Having spent eight months in Iraq as a volunteer to assist the military in security, I can
assure your readers that these one-sided, anti-U.S. press releases serve only as an instrument by which radical
Arabic news agencies print large bold headlines depicting our service personnel as monsters. I have seen
those articles and they are sickening.
The Worst of (the)
Times. It has become more and more transparent that the New York Times leans
not only left, but far enough away from mainstream America so as to reach out to our enemies
in the War on Terror.
Déjà
Vu, All Over Again. The New York Times and its wars against John Bolton and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
New York Times Once Again Does Its Best To
Thwart the War On Terror. Sometimes you really have to wonder if The New York Times is on
the Al Queda payroll. Not content with exposing, and thus making worthless the NSA Terrorist
Surveillance Program, the Old Gray Lady has a lengthy exclusive on a CIA/Treasury Department program to
monitor financial transaction of suspected terrorists.
The First, Refuge of Scoundrels. The
New York Times' First Amendment and public interest smokescreens are absurd. As everyone else,
they have a right to speak and publish their ideas, opinions and thoughts. But they have no right to
shout fire in a theater — or betray legitimate national security secrets — no matter
how big and powerful they are. The press needs to stop confusing the two.
The terrorist-tipping
Times: The New York Times (proudly publishing all the secrets unfit to spill since 9/11) and their
reckless anonymous sources (come out, come out, you cowards) tipped off terrorists to America's efforts to track
their financial activities. Guess what? It isn't the first time blabbermouth journalists have
jeopardized terror-financing investigations since Sept. 11, according to the government.
On the other hand...
It is
No Crime When Journalists Report What's Public. Lawyer Buddy Parker assumed years ago that
the U.S. government had tracked every penny that went into and out of the accounts of his client, suspected
of laundering money for terrorists. What he can't comprehend is the stir created by reports that the
feds are monitoring international banking records. "It's a yawner," says Parker, a former assistant
U.S. attorney and now a white-collar defense lawyer in Atlanta.
Protecting secrets
calls for strong measures. Yet another leak of highly classified intelligence has made fighting
terrorists more difficult. But the media claim they — not our elected leaders — know
what's best for the country.
Bad
Manners in the Media. What will the Justice Department do about a little-known law that seems to
make just this type of disclosure clearly illegal?
Some of my best friends
are journalists. You cannot balance what you have not weighed, and you cannot weigh what you
cannot measure. Neither of the Times Two possesses the capacity, background, experience or learning to
judge the extent of the assistance they have rendered terrorists. No "expert" they could consult would
be in a position to contradict the government's strong assertions of the danger they were putting innocents
in via their recklessness.
"Show me the
money!". The paper that boasts about delivering "all the news that's fit to print" defends its
right to divulge state secrets by arrogantly claiming that "the public has the right to know."
The New York Times
strikes again. Do you think that style-setter of American journalism — The New York
Times — would have run its expose of still another terrorist-tracking program if it had found out
about it when the program was first set in motion, in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks?
Not All the News Is Fit to
Print. During World War II the United States government's Office of War Information spearheaded
a national campaign whose most well-known slogan was "Loose Lips Sink Ships." … The Bush administration
should institute a similar campaign that instructs citizens of both the real dangers of proliferating classified
information and that the meaning of the First Amendment is not a license to publish anything.
House Roll Call Vote on
Intelligence Leaks. The 227-183 roll call Thursday [6/29/2006] by which the House passed a
resolution condemning news organizations for revealing a covert government program to track terrorist
financing.
More New York Times Distortions of the
Rich: It is impossible that the Bush tax cuts of June 2003 contributed to relatively lower tax
payments by the very richest Americans in 2002. But New York Times writer David Cay Johnston
conveniently avoids this fact….
Slurring Bush at the
New York Times. The utter disdain of New York Times reporters for President
Bush makes a mockery of the supposed "separation of church and state" (putatively reporting
neutrally, editorializing from the left) in their brand of journalism. The Times'
condescension or loathing of the President seeps into news stories subtly.
What is the New York Times
Promoting? "Personnel is policy" is an old axiom in politics. It also applies to the world
of journalism, as evidenced by recent developments at The New York Times, which has been trending even
further left with recent appointments. First, the Times promoted crusading liberal editorial page
editor Howell Raines, who once publicly mourned that "the Reagan years oppressed me," to
editor-in-chief. Now, Richard Berke, the paper's national political correspondent since 1993, is
being promoted to Washington editor, the number-two job in a bureau of more than 50 people.
The Al-Qaeda Times: You
could call it "Treason Central," or "al Qaeda West," but no matter what you call it, the building housing
the once-august New York Times at 229 West 43rd St. in New York City is a beehive of anti-American
hostility, where selling out the nation's secrets has become the newspaper's stock in trade.
All the News
That's Fit to Prosecute. The congressional rebuke of the paper makes it clear that the American
people, speaking through their representatives, are more distressed by the help given to al Qaeda by the Times
than by some purely hypothetical danger to civil liberties.
This just in ...
Karl Rove
Secretly Runs The New York Times. In a stunning development that would appear to have broad
implications for the independence of America's newspaper industry, New York Times Publisher, Edwin 'Pinch'
Sulzberger today revealed that longtime President Bush advisor Karl Rove has been secretly running the
Times' news and editorial operation for almost four years.
The right not to know: Once
more the spoiler. Despite the earnest persuasion of the White House to preserve a useful weapon in the war
against the terrorists, the New York Times has revealed the workings of a covert surveillance program,
indisputably within the law, to use administrative subpoenas to examine, through a Belgian financial consortium
known by the acronym SWIFT, the financing of international terrorism.
The New York Times
is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush
administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal
the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.
The Truth About Torture: "If an enemy
devised a diabolical plot to darken America's image, it is hard to imagine anything operating more efficiently
toward that end than the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." The implication behind this false
statement, which began a June 18 New York Times story by Scott Shane, is that the U.S. is
torturing prisoners.
The CIA Is Still After Bush. The
Washington Post on July 9 published an article, "When in Doubt, Publish," which began by saying
that, "It is the business — and the responsibility — of the press to reveal secrets." It
was signed by five major figures involved in the field of journalism education. … In the
process of trying to sound like guardians of the public's right to know, they disclosed
their preference for keeping the American people in the dark about what the chairman of
the House Intelligence Committee says is a major faction of the CIA that is deliberately
subverting the foreign policy of the Bush Administration.
Prosecute the New York Times.
Gabriel Schoenfeld … explains, "By means of that disclosure, the New York Times has tipped off
al Qaeda, our declared mortal enemy, that we have been listening to every one of its communications
that we have been able to locate, and have succeeded in doing so even as its operatives switch from line
to line or location to location."
Is Al-Jazeera Less Biased Than The
New York Times? Sadly, this once again demonstrated how America's media are fighting a different
battle than its soldiers. After all, for publications that have been voicing loud and almost constant
opposition to this war for several years, any positive development that leads to their expressly desired troop
withdrawal should be heralded from the rooftops. On their part, any behavior to the contrary indicates
media that want the troops to leave, but only if they do so in loss and shame.
Shouting "fire" in
a crowded theater: The program, headed by the CIA and overseen by the Treasury Department, is
known as the "Terrorist Finance Tracking Program" (TFTP) and was begun shortly after the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. … The CIA, under the TFTP, examines mainly wire transfers and other methods of moving money
overseas and into and out of the United States. … The government uses the data for terrorism
investigations only, not such things as tax fraud or drug trafficking investigations.
Aid and
comfort: 'The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," says President Bush. That's one
word. Here's another: Dangerous. The New York Times has again put its institutional
arrogance and contempt for the duly elected current administration ahead of the security of the nation.
Has the New York
Times Violated the Espionage Act? What the New York Times has done is nothing less
than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism. If information
about the NSA program had been quietly conveyed to an al-Qaeda operative on a microdot, or on paper with
invisible ink, there can be no doubt that the episode would have been treated by the government as a
cut-and-dried case of espionage. Publishing it for the world to read, the Times has accomplished
the same end while at the same time congratulating itself for bravely defending the First Amendment and
thereby protecting us — from, presumably, ourselves.
Gray
Lady Down. The so-called mainstream media in general and The New York Times in particular
are waging a relentless campaign undermining the war on terror. The Fourth Estate is beginning
to look like a Fifth Column.
The Soviets Had the
KGB — Al Qaeda Has the NYT. America spends $40 billion per year on
intelligence operations aimed at discovering our enemies' secret activities. All our enemies
have to do is subscribe to the New York Times and, for as little as $4.65 per week, they can discover
most of our secret operations — at least as long as a Republican is President.
Laughable claims about
the NSA "Scandal". It's clear that the New York Times is in big trouble with the
announcement that the Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the leaks behind
its NSA surveillance story. The investigation is long overdue. The paper had been
warned by the President that national security would be seriously jeopardized if this program
were made public, but it nevertheless chose to print it anyway.
The Gray
Lady Toys with Treason. The New York Times … has published classified
information — and thereby knowingly blown the covers of secret programs and
agencies engaged in combating the terrorist threat.
The New
York Times vs. America. 2005 was a banner year for the nation's Idiotarian newspaper
of record, The New York Times.
New York Times Company Spirals Further
Downward. It is sad to watch a once-great company decline. Jobs are sacrificed, historic
facilities closed, and an atmosphere of failure and fear usually permeates the surviving operations. When
a company needs to sell-off profitable crown jewels to sustain the lagging less profitable pieces, it does not
portend future happiness.
The Press And the Rush To Judgment. Remember
those January newspaper headlines heralding the survival of all 12 trapped miners in West Virginia? Even
the august New York Times reported "12 Found Alive 41 Hours After Explosion," but only one miner had actually
survived. In the frenzy to scoop competitors, reporters failed their journalistic responsibility, and
this penchant to rush to judgment before all the facts are verified is again occurring on two recent hot
button issues — homeland security funding cuts to New York City and the Haditha civilian deaths.
About that Quagmire… It's
amazing — The New York Times editorial page yesterday had something positive to say
about the present occupant of the White House. Not President Bush by name, of course. That
would be going too far. But the paper of record acknowledged "truly astonishing" things are
happening in the Middle East — noting dryly that "the Bush administration is entitled to
claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances."
Media
reporting from Iraq is one-sided and flawed. If you rely on newspapers
and TV networks for your news, chances are you have no idea that the controversial
performance of Western reporters in Iraq is emerging as a big issue. The mainstream
media have virtually ignored the stunning charges made by John Burns, the New York
Times Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter.
Great Gray Lady in spat with saloon
hussy: The New York Times was in high dudgeon this week upon discovering that Fox News chairman
Roger Ailes sent a letter to the Bush White House nine days after Sept. 11. As the corpses of
thousands of his fellow Americans lay in smoldering heaps, Ailes evidently recommended getting rough with
the terrorists.
Lockstep on the Left:
In the past few weeks, the erudite leftist writers and editors of the New York Times have tried to enlighten
the unsophisticated American public about the possible war against Iraq.
The Media Middle: The immediate ad
hominem attacks on President Bush after the terrorist acts by Jennings of ABC, Dowd of the
New York Times, Shields of PBS, Andy Rooney of CBS, etc., are typical of the America-hating
establishment mainstream press. This was a time when thousands of innocent American lives were lost in a
dastardly act of war, yet these intellectually challenged media morons couldn't resist attacking their greatest
conceived nemesis - a Republican president.
The New York Times Still is
not Sure Bush is 'Legitimate': Most media and congressional leftists who attacked President Bush
during our national emergency have backpedaled like crazy after an outpouring of rage from the public, but the
dunce king of all media arrogance, the New York Times, is still at it.
New York Times Attacking President
Bush: How depraved can the liberal media be? How despicable? How utterly
anti-American? The New York Times, the flagship of the liberal elites, the group that helped lead us to
this mess, the same cabal that had only nice things to say about Bill Clinton, opened up a ferocious
broadside against President Bush in the middle of one of the worst crises ever to hit our country.
Blurring distinctions between
murderers and their victims: It's a journalistic atrocity to blur the distinction between
murderers and their victims, but that's what both the New York Times and Newsweek decided to do in their
lurid coverage of the Middle East.
The New York Times Still is
not Sure Bush is 'Legitimate': Most media and congressional leftists who attacked President Bush
during our national emergency have backpedaled like crazy after an outpouring of rage from the public, but the
dunce king of all media arrogance, the New York Times, is still at it.
New York Times Attacking President
Bush: How depraved can the liberal media be? How despicable? How utterly
anti-American? The New York Times, the flagship of the liberal elites, the group that helped lead us to
this mess, the same cabal that had only nice things to say about Bill Clinton, opened up a ferocious
broadside against President Bush in the middle of one of the worst crises ever to hit our country.
New York Times
lowballs homeless numbers. Estimates of the number of homeless have a long history of politics
trumping accuracy. When President Reagan was in office, the American media often quoted made-up figures
from "advocates" along with the mantra that many of us were "one paycheck away" from living on the streets
ourselves. But yesterday [1/2/2007], the New York Times published a surprisingly low estimate of the
number of homeless. But this time, the estimate was for the number of homeless in France.
Journalistic
Malpractice in "Marriage is Dead" Report. On Tuesday, January 16th, 2007, the American people
awoke to startling and disturbing news: for the first time ever, the majority of women in the country
were living without a husband. ... [But] it's not true. The entire story (based on the work of one
ax-grinding, irresponsible, agenda-driven journalist for the New York Times) has been cooked up from willful,
blatant and shameful distortions. Amazingly enough, none of the most respected and purportedly responsible
media authorities have taken the trouble to call him on it.
All
the "News"? The latest in a long line of New York Times editorials disguised as "news" stories was
a recent article suggesting that most American women today do not have husbands. Partly this was based on
census data — but much more so on creative definitions. The Times defined "women" to include
females as young as 16 and counted widows, who of course could not be widows unless they had once had a
husband. Wives whose husbands were away in the military, or in prison, were also counted among women
not living with a husband.
Back to The War With No Name
Back to the Media Bias Page
Back to the Home page
|
|
